[jallerton]

A correspondent writes:

Quote

A player, who should (does) know better, makes a jump bid without using the Stop card.  Next hand makes an insufficient bid.  I take it he may amend his call, but does that invoke 26?

So, for example, the auction goes 1♥-2♠-2♥ and when the 2♥ bidder is asked why he bid 2♥, he says that he had a raise to the 2-level and "knew" that 2♥ must be a sufficient bid when his RHO had bid without a STOP or alert.

What do you do as TD?

[pran]

jallerton, on Aug 30 2010, 09:56 AM, said:

A correspondent writes:

Quote

A player, who should (does) know better, makes a jump bid without using the Stop card.  Next hand makes an insufficient bid.  I take it he may amend his call, but does that invoke 26?

So, for example, the auction goes 1♥-2♠-2♥ and when the 2♥ bidder is asked why he bid 2♥, he says that he had a raise to the 2-level and "knew" that 2♥ must be a sufficient bid when his RHO had bid without a STOP or alert.

What do you do as TD?

Apply Law 27 to its full extent.

I shall expect (but of couse NOT suggest!) a replacement bid of 3♥ in which case there is no further consequences, but if the offender chooses any other replacement call then both Law 26 and Law 23 (and possibly other laws as well) can be applicable.

If after a replacement raise to 3♥ (normally showing a stronger raise than the IB) opener declines to bid 4♥ (which he would normally have done with a more than minimum opening strength after a jump raise) because of the apparent information that responder isn't really that strong, I shall balance this information with the failure to use STOP and let the result stand unless there is a really strong reason to adjust.

(WBFLC recognises that it is legal for the offender to "bend" agreements slightly in order to avoid the more severe consequences of Law 27B. The knowledge of this fact is also authorized to offender's partner.)

[RMB1]

jallerton, on Aug 30 2010, 09:56 AM, said:

So, for example, the auction goes 1♥-2♠-2♥ and when the 2♥ bidder is asked why he bid 2♥, he says that he had a raise to the 2-level and "knew" that 2♥ must be a sufficient bid when his RHO had bid without a STOP or alert.

(I might point out that a natural 2♥ overcall is not a stop or an alert, and would render 2♥ by responder insufficient.)

I would apply Law 27, I don't see I have any choice (and Law 23/Law 26 if appropriate).
I would issue a procedural penalty (fine of standard amount) to overcaller.

[PeterE]

Agree with Sven (and Robin in the meanwhile) here.

Quote

... when the 2♥ bidder is asked why he bid 2♥, he says that he had a raise to the 2-level and "knew" that 2♥ must be a sufficient bid when his RHO had bid without a STOP or alert.

Perhaps I will tell 2♥ bidder he should look at RHO's bidding cards as well and not only whether there have been any supplementary non-bidding-cards (STOP and ALERT).
The non-stopper will get a PP because he "created" this mess.

[bluejak]

We certainly cannot fail to apply Law 27 unless .......

How about Law 81C5? There is a cause.

The only other thing we could do is to apply Law 12A1 and adjust afterwards. What about it?

[pran]

bluejak, on Aug 30 2010, 11:46 AM, said:

We certainly cannot fail to apply Law 27 unless .......

How about Law 81C5? There is a cause.

The only other thing we could do is to apply Law 12A1 and adjust afterwards. What about it?

Only if the overcaller who failed to "STOP" (NOS in the case of an insufficient bid) requests a waiver.

In such a case I just might consider a retraction of the insufficient bid without implying Law 27 at all.

[gnasher]

RMB1, on Aug 30 2010, 10:35 AM, said:

I would issue a procedural penalty (fine of standard amount) to overcaller.

PeterE said:

The non-stopper will get a PP because he "created" this mess.

Do you do that every time you're made aware of a failure to use the Stop Card? If not, why would this case qualify but not others?

It seems to me unfair to penalise somebody for the consequences of his offence, rather than for the severity of the offence (if that's what you're doing).

[PeterE]

The English Orange Book in 7B4 says:

Quote

Before making a jump bid (ie a bid at a higher level than the minimum in that denomination) a player should place the Stop card in front of him, then place his call as usual, and eventually remove the Stop card. His LHO should not call until the Stop card has been removed.

Guessing the EBU uses the word 'should' the way "defined" in the Laws (although I found no mention of it):

Quote

[...] “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)[...]

It is my believe to issue PPs in cases of aggravated circumstances (either severe infractions or worse consequences (e.g. need to give adjustments with more than 100% for a table (60-60)).

[aguahombre]

pran, on Aug 30 2010, 03:12 AM, said:

If after a replacement raise to 3♥ (normally showing a stronger raise than the IB) opener declines to bid 4♥ (which he would normally have done with a more than minimum opening strength after a jump raise) because of the apparent information that responder isn't really that strong, I shall balance this information with the failure to use STOP and let the result stand unless there is a really strong reason to adjust.

I am frequently (usually unsuccessfully) in favor of directors applying this ---stopping just short of suggesting that the insufficient bidder had intent when he made the insufficient bid.

But in this case, and for this pair, would a sufficient 3H really be invitational?
Maybe they use a tool or extend the negative double for real invites. This particular auction is quite common, and many pairs do not show extra values with a pressure 3H response and the sufficient bid has virtually the same meaning as the insufficient bid.

It would be worth investigating before making a ruling, even in jurisdictions where the STOP card is not treated as a requirement.

[savphantom]

Re aquahombre 30 Aug 201

"But in this case, and for this pair, would a sufficient 3H really be invitational?
Maybe they use a tool or extend the negative double for real invites. This particular auction is quite common, and many pairs do not show extra values with a pressure 3H response and the sufficient bid has virtually the same meaning as the insufficient bid.

It would be worth investigating before making a ruling, even in jurisdictions where the STOP card is not treated as a requirement. "

Is this too academic - TD just says L27 is applicable?
L16A authorised information derives from legal calls and plays not unused STOP cards
as well L21A Call Based Upon Caller's Misunderstanding seems to leave the IBidder with no recourse.

Australian viewpoint !!

[bluejak]

We are trying to decide how the Laws should be applied, not whether they should be applied. There are nearly always problems when there is more than one infraction because the Laws do not deal well with multiple infractions. In cases like this, where the infractions are connected, it is less obvious still.

Now, as an Australian, you do not have a problem with non-compliance with a Stop card because you have no such rule. Fine: but that does not mean that it is right to ignore the non-compliance with the Stop card for the purpose of ruling. With an international forum like this opinions are frequently given by people about happenings in other jurisdictions, but you must do so using the rules in that jurisdiction. If you ask a problem based on a non-alert, we shall answer based on Australian alerting, not on ACBL or EBU alerting.

In this case, non-compliance with the rules has led to a further breach [or perhaps it would have happened anyway]. You cannot just ignore th first infraction.

Furthermore, with the mess that exists in Law 27 anyway, it is not entirely obvious how to rule under Law 27. So the thread is an interesting one.

[VixTD]

bluejak, on Aug 30 2010, 05:46 AM, said:

The only other thing we could do is to apply Law 12A1 and adjust afterwards.  What about it?

Do we need to go to Law 12A1, which is for when the laws provide no indemnity for an infraction? Doesn't Law 73 D2 and F direct us to Law 12C:

Quote

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark
or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating
before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made
or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

and

Quote

When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage
to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player
has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an
opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who
could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to
his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

[RMB1]

gnasher, on Aug 30 2010, 03:36 PM, said:

Do you do that every time you're made aware of a failure to use the Stop Card?  If not, why would this case qualify but not others?

It seems to me unfair to penalise somebody for the consequences of his offence, rather than for the severity of the offence (if that's what you're doing).

No.
Because the failure in procedure caused a problem for another player.
It is what we (Peter+me+others) are doing and it is somewhat arbitary.

I would fine a player who passed on a card face up in a board, unless the next table were able to recover and play the board normally.

The alternative is to fine every lapse in procedure we becore aware of, which appears petty. Fining only when the lapse in procedure inconveniences other players is consistent with Law 90.

In life, the same negligent act can have different effects (different amounts of damage) and the punishment is more severe if the effects are more severe.

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2010-August-31, 13:40

[pran]

bluejak, on Aug 31 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

Furthermore, with the mess that exists in Law 27 anyway, it is not entirely obvious how to rule under Law 27.  So the thread is an interesting one.

Law 27B1b is an addition in 2007 to the existing Law 27 on insufficient bids. WBFLC apparently knew what they wanted to achieve with this addition; however specifying that in legal terms is not easy and WBFLC found themselves forced to have a separate session on this law before writing the final version.

As one of the persons who believe I understand Law 27 I cannot agree with a claim without any evidence to an alleged fact that this law is a mess. Instead I read such statements as lack of respect to the work done by WBFLC, or maybe even worse: As contempt of WBFLC. This does not help bridge at all.

The most common objection I have noticed against Law 27B1b is that an illegal call (e.g. an insufficient bid) cannot have an agreed "meaning", at least not legally, so it is an impossibility to rule if a replacement call can have the same or a more precise meaning.

Fine. Where does that bring us? Look at Law 27B1a: .....both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial..... How can the insufficient bid incontrovertibly be not artificial unless it has a meaning? Note that Law 27 leaves it to the Director to decide if any of the affected calls has a meaning, and in case which (of course after collecting possible evidence).

If we accept the objection that an insufficient bid dannot have a meaning then such bids destroy the auction so Law 27 can, and must be reduced to After an insufficient bid the board is cancelled and a new deal begins.

As far as I know this is what could be read in the very early laws on (Rubber) Contract Bridge. Such a law is for several reasons completely unsuitable in Duplicate. We want as far as possible to have a competition in auction and play, not in various forms of adjusted scores.

For several years the law on insufficient bids has focused on the bid being "natural" or "conventional", resulting in increased problems as more and more "conventional" calls saw the light in the world of bridge.

What WBFLC did in 2007 was to recognize the increased use of artificial calls and the desirability to preserve a normal proceeding of the board in spite of irregularities if at all possible.

The result was the new Law 27B1b based on the principle that "normal" (continued) auction and play of the board is possible provided the replacement call does not add any information to what is apparent from the insufficient bid.

Of course this presents the Director with a challenge; WBFLC wrote in the preface to the 2007 Laws: Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the increased responsibilities given to them.

In my honest opinion I believe that we should appreciate this evolution rather than critizising it for no reason other than that we do not yet understand the new laws.

[bluejak]

The main effect of the new Law is to make it difficult to rule at the level at which most IBs occur, ie in clubs. I have a perfect right to think the WBFLC have made a serious mistake, and there is no need to deduce from that I have no respect for th WBFLC: that is a nonsense. Everyone makes mistakes: does that mean we have no respect for anyone? Of course not.



I do not believe that failure to follow the Stop procedure properly is a breach of the Proprieties listed in Law 73.

[VixTD]

bluejak, on Aug 31 2010, 10:52 AM, said:

I do not believe that failure to follow the Stop procedure properly is a breach of the Proprieties listed in Law 73.

Surely use of the STOP card relates to "the manner in which a call or play is made".

[pran]

bluejak, on Aug 31 2010, 04:52 PM, said:

The main effect of the new Law is to make it difficult to rule at the level at which most IBs occur, ie in clubs. 

That is not my experience after 30 years in the business!

[RMB1]

bluejak, on Aug 31 2010, 04:52 PM, said:

I do not believe that failure to follow the Stop procedure properly is a breach of the Proprieties listed in Law 73.

If you want to apply a "could have known" law, then Law 23 would be sufficient. Surely, failure to follow procedure required by regulation is an irregularity. This again leads to Law 12C.

But I do not think Law 23 applies in this case, because I do not think the first offender could be aware that his failure to STOP could well damage opponents by inducing an insufficient bid.

[knyblad]

Of course opener should not use the UI that responder only has enough for a 2 level bid. But both sides are at fault. Say opener raises to 4♥ because he thinks that is a logical alternative some players would chose. Now he only makes 9 tricks. Should the score be adjusted to 3♠ nine tricks? What if he makes only 8 tricks in an attempt to make 10, but there is an obvious gameplan for getting 9? Should the score be adjusted to 3♠ 8 or 9 tricks? Finally say there is only 8 tricks in the cards. Should the score be adjusted to 3♠ 8 tricks?

[jallerton]

Knyblad, in the strange world of Law27, it is perfectly acceptabe to use UI from the insufficient bid after a correction of a natural bid to the same strain at the lowest legal level: Law27B1(a) tells us that this information is authorised.